Denver's Civil Service Commission on Friday unanimously approved changes to its rules governing how police officers and firefighters are disciplined, hoping to fix what one commissioner described as a "broken process."The decision came over the concerns of members of the city's police and fire unions, who said the changes would deny them due process and be a "rubber stamp" for the safet...

The problem is public employee unions. Even FDR opposed them. When you have multiple employers, unions make sense. When government is the sole employer, you create an incestuous situation where politicians seek support from the same unions that they're negotiating with. The checks and balances are discarded.

I'm a volunteer firefighter. I want to see firefighters treated fairly. I just think that a union for government workers does not do that. Look at the California firefighter pensions. They're absurd, and because they're so expensive, fire protection is not as good as it would be without the union.

My humble suggestion is to eliminate the middle man (Civil Service Commission) from the disciplinary process. Let the Manager of Safety have the final say on disciplinary matters. If the union wants to, let them sue.

It seems like whatever decision the Commission makes is either the subject of a lawsuit by the City or the union anyway.

Now someone please tell me what the hell the difference is between one hearing officer overruling the person of Safety than three overruling him? The poltically appointed idiots on the Self Serve Commission will only overrule that person and give into pressure. Spangler is an even bigger person. Why is your decision always right and the hearing panel is always wrong? You and your cronies don't know it all. You just have a different opinion on the issue is all and everyone has to live with it. Why is that?? Why have a hearing process at all if you people are just gonna overrule everything and do what you want? Those hearing officers are very smart people and there for a reason but that group of simple simons at the Commission are nothing but self-serving. Now many reading this have no idea about it until you're subjected to these dumba...s then maybe you'll understand!!! Don't be judgemental because officers are first and foremost human and not robots. And is it really fair to fire someone who does something that effects absolutely nobody or nothing then let someone who doesn't know the law, let a criminal go, get rid of evidence, threaten officers, and lie to investigators keep her job? Talk about being selective!!! Consistency is all that everyone asks.

chartguy wrote:The problem is public employee unions. Even FDR opposed them. When you have multiple employers, unions make sense. When government is the sole employer, you create an incestuous situation where politicians seek support from the same unions that they're negotiating with. The checks and balances are discarded.

I'm a volunteer firefighter. I want to see firefighters treated fairly. I just think that a union for government workers does not do that. Look at the California firefighter pensions. They're absurd, and because they're so expensive, fire protection is not as good as it would be without the union.

"The commission is to be commended for recognizing the erosion of public trust in this process over the past few years and for making sweeping changes that will improve the handling of disciplinary appeals moving forward," Friednash said.

I sure hope this is true.

Under the old system, disciplined officers could request an appeal hearing that resembled a small trial and put the onus on the safety-manager to prove that the punishment was warranted. The changes approved Friday force the officer to show the discipline was unjust.

Ironically, the DPD does not like it's own medicine. The disregard for due process only comes up when it affects them. If they had been choosing and enforcing more accountable and ethical behaviour, these changes would not be in their faces.

Those on the right will suggest this is the "right" thing (excuse pun) to do, because in private industry there is no "due process." Those on the left will say this is unfair, because they believe in due process and realize the more subjective a decision is the less objective it typically is. I guess my viewpoint is from a "history" of Denver cops getting off after shooting, abusing an innocent victim. Obviously the Denver Police system is flawed and any less support for the cop, "should" be a good thing. We seldom read in the news about a Denver cop who was fired unfairly. In fact, most cops who beat and shoot innocents, don't lose their job for their actions and crime, but rather for "lying" on the report.

chartguy wrote:The problem is public employee unions. Even FDR opposed them. When you have multiple employers, unions make sense. When government is the sole employer, you create an incestuous situation where politicians seek support from the same unions that they're negotiating with. The checks and balances are discarded.

I'm a volunteer firefighter. I want to see firefighters treated fairly. I just think that a union for government workers does not do that. Look at the California firefighter pensions. They're absurd, and because they're so expensive, fire protection is not as good as it would be without the union.

It's "interesting" how those without due process and organized support for the job and integrity, so quickly want to claim that having due process and support is . . "unfair." If they don't have it - no one should have it. Maybe if we went back to organized labor unions and an employee work force that has support and has due process when their employer seeks to fire them unfairly, we'd all appreciate that employees have rights too!?

Probyone20 wrote:Now someone please tell me what the hell the difference is between one hearing officer overruling the person of Safety than three overruling him? . . . Why have a hearing process at all if you people are just gonna overrule everything and do what you want?

.. . and why hold an election if more people end of overruling your vote because of their numbers and (gulp!) majority!? Some people don't understand the concept of "due process" and that a greater number of people involved in a decision provides a better answer, solution, and that "the people" can accept.